Monday, September 07, 2009

Taking part

UPDATE: Those of you coming here from Marc Morano's Climate Depot, might want to take a look at an evaluation of his 700 Skeptical Scientists. To put it bluntly, not very many of them have ever done anything on climate. Eli blogged on this earlier, but the list is not very impressive.
--------------------
Andrew Freedman who posts on the Capital Weather Gang has been visited by a plague of Moranos. He wrote, not so long ago, that Obama needs to give a speech on the need for climate legislation which will control greenhouse gas emissions. For his efforts he has been visited by the banshees.

Andrew has written a letter to Marc

Your lengthy response to my piece "Obama Needs to Give a Climate Speech - ASAP" contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation. I think you revealed your politically driven agenda quite nakedly when you assailed the United Nations for its role in climate and energy policy. The fact that you think the solutions to climate change will cost more than letting the climate system run amok, particularly in the developing world, does not stand up to close scrutiny in the academic literature.

I stand by what I wrote, especially the criticism of your venture as existing largely to create the impression of a crumbling scientific consensus on climate change, when in fact there is no such trend taking place in the scientific community.

Eli would not recommend your visiting Climate Depot, as one of the commentors on Andrew's site wrote

I actually made the mistake of clicking over to that ClimateDepot link yesterday. I got about halfway down the page and stopped reading. It sounded like it was written by a young teen who was off his Ritalin. Much, though not all obviously, of the climate "skeptic" stuff does.

still, a visit and signing the guest book at the Capital Weather Gang, would help.

19 comments:

jyyh said...

Wasn't the 'depot' the satire site that can only be recommended after trying to convince an educated and willful denialist of the global warming? Been there only once after reading about a 'Global thermostate controller' Al Gore supposedly has. Never argue with an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Morano's attack on Freedman included reference to all kinds of 'distinguished' and 'UN IPCC' scientists. The former being people who are as distinguished as your average university professor (pick any), and the UN IPCC scientists being people who acted as reviewer...

Marco

amoeba said...

Ugh! Nasty trolls!
I need to crawl through some slime to feel clean again!

Amoeba

Marion Delgado said...

done.

Anonymous said...

The phrase United Nations includes the word "nations" which suggests that "national" entities might have something to do with it's doings.

Call me reactionary, but I don't see anything apolitical in a panel created by a group of nations calling itself "intergovernmental".

Apolitical national governmental projects?

How stupid do they think we are?

-Vendetta fanboy

Flavius Collium said...

That's the one:
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
It's more in the Watts category though...

Alex said...

Moranos? MORONas, surely...

Arthur said...

Hmm, hardly rapid response - it looks like the post has been up almost a week already... But I added my 2 cents anyway.

EliRabett said...

Better late than never, but there is an advantage in closing a thread

Ashamed of the impulse said...

It would be wrong, to photoshop an "o" into this photo:
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/uploads/morans.jpg

CapitalClimate said...

I submitted this comment to Tobis' echo of this theme, but he's fussy about what he allows, so here's a duplicate in case he lets it show up:

You're being incredibly naive. Freedman writes a tone-deaf post, so Morano pounces to get himself more visibility, and then the screechers come out of the woodwork.

Why should Obama give a climate science speech? The guy is nothing if not a pragmatist. He needs to give such a speech like he needs to give a biomedicine lecture to pass health care reform.

The WaPo's refusal to enforce any kind of sensible comment policy is a main reason why CapitalClimate spun itself off shortly after the former CapitalWeather sold itself out. If you want to be constructive, direct your energy at WaPo management for letting their resources be polluted, not at supporting Freedman for walking around with a target on his back.

EliRabett said...

The issue is less Freeman than Morano's roving mob.

Anonymous said...

Freedman naive? Then so is Joe Romm who wrote earlier today "Now Obama just needs to deliver a rip roaring speech ... on climate in the fall"
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/08/obama-labor-day-speech-clean-energy-jobs/#more-10989

As well as Rick Piltz (from ClimateScienceWatch): "[Freedman's call for a speech] reflects what we have been saying since the election"

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/washpost-capital-weather-gang/

Romm was a former political appointee and Piltz worked on the Hill. And CapitalClimate's political experience???

Andrew Freedman said...

EliRabbett - thanks for coming to my defense, it is much appreciated.

I hate to pollute this forum with a back and forth with one particular former colleague, but I feel I need to defend the commenting policies of washingtonpost.com and the Capital Weather Gang site in particular against the points made by CapitalClimate.

The commenting policy of the washington post web site is aimed at promoting free speech. Therefore, we impose the fewest restrictions (name-calling, profanity etc.) as possible. If we were to restrict comments based on ideological persuasion, that would be anti-free speech. Perhaps, CapitalClimate, you are being too restrictive of comments on your site, considering the dearth of discussion that goes on there these days?

On the point of being "tone deaf," I'd add several prominent enviro journalists who agreed with my view to the list, including folks at Grist, NYT, and elsewhere.

CapitalClimate said...

Perhaps I wasn't clear. The operative word was science. Joe Romm does "get it" when he refers to Obama: "[H]e launches into a scathing attack on the status quo special interests who are trying to block action on health care reform . . ." Anyone who thinks the climate policy issue is about the science is naive. It's directly about the money and indirectly about the ideology. That's the secondary meaning behind the name CapitalClimate. Arguing about academic studies and peer-reviewed research with paid pro-pollution propagandists is exactly the kind of time and energy wasting diversion the Morano mindless minions are attempting to accomplish. Romm learned that lesson and refuses to link to or debate the Despot. If you want the deniers to succeed, keep letting them set the terms.

The WaPo sinking ship has no interest in the science; it's purely about marketing eyeballs. They are only interested in engaging Climate Despot for the clicks it can generate. As for the commenting policy, Eli's is quite open, but I seriously doubt he would tolerate the dreck that pollutes any WaPo post or article that even mentions the word "climate." Free speech is not the freedom to trash science with ideology. In any case, the forum owner is only obligated to follow the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules." Is a newspaper obligated to publish every illiterate scribble that's submitted as a Letter to the Editor? If so, they would be going out of business even faster than they are now.

And exactly how are we supposed to check the cred of Mr./Ms./Bot Anonymouse?

Anonymous said...

That's the one:
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
It's more in the Watts category though...


No, one is satire, the other only *reads* like satire.

CapitalClmate said...

WaPo/CWG has really jumped the shark now. Apparently they didn't get enough hits from Morono the first time; must be trying to get a link on the Dreck Report. How about some support from the Anonymice?

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Gack!!! I read the WaPo bit and it was a veritable Denial Depot piece. It was like Joe Bastardi (what an appropriate name) on O'Lielly.

CapitalClimate said...

I have strong reason to believe that they were warned, but went ahead anyway in the interest of "free speech" (new-speak for delivering more eyeballs to advertisers). So much for old media joining the new media revolution and retaining even what little credibility they had left. It's OK with them, because "several prominent journalists" agree. Having watched the online WaPo crash and burn multiple times since attempting to take on AOL in 1994, I must say that I'm enjoying the spectacle.